In the past, I've attempted to read Bible verses from a Trinitarian perspective, just to see if it seemed convincing to me when reading the Bible that way. I also tried to understand how Trinitarians think when reading Scripture. But here lately, I wonder what it would be like for a Trinitarian to read the Bible from a non-Trinitarian perspective. For example, Hebrews 9:14 (NET):
"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God."
Surely the word "God" in this verse, especially the first occurrence, does not refer to the triune God, does it? After all, Christ evidently offered himself through the holy spirit to God. Did he offer himself to himself? Surely not. Nor did he offer himself to the holy spirit, it seems.
What about 2 Corinthians 5:21?
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (NASB 1995).
To whom does the pronoun "He" refer in this passage? Looking at the context in vss. 20-21, the referent again is God. But who is the God being discussed in this account? It's the one who sent Christ and made him to be sin (i.e., a sin offering) for Christians. Did Christ send himself to be a sin offering for us?
Now lest someone try to prove that Christ is God because 2 Corinthians 5:19 when translated says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," he or she needs to look deeper into the Greek of the verse.
While Constantine R. Campbell speaks about the clear Trinitarian inference within 2 Corinthians 5:19, he still regards the preposition en (most likely) as periphrastic being that it likely occurs within the context of a verbal periphrasis. I utterly disagree with Campbell about the "clear Trinitarian inference," but think he's correct regarding God working "in" Christ, instrumentally. Garland writes:
This phrase can be construed so that it emphasizes the incarnation: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (KJV, REB). But Paul's theological agenda here does not center on affirming the incarnation. The same may be said of translating the phrase as a predicate nominative: “It was God who in Christ was reconciling the world to himself.” The option chosen by the NIV to render the phrase as an imperfect periphrastic is the most likely: “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself. The “in Christ” has an instrumental force— through Christ.Garland, David. 2 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary Book 29) (Kindle Locations 5565-5569). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Finally, I would recommend that Trinitarians read 1 Peter 1:20-21 and meditate deeply on these verses. The Bible writer clearly is not using "God" there for Christ or the triune Godhead.
6 comments:
The best of the trinitarian exegetes are good at finding the economic trinity, but the issue is the move from the economic to the ontological.
I agree that it's difficult for them to make that leap, from the economic to the ontological, but most writers I've seen either assert there's an essential connection between the two or they rely on Karl Rahner's axiom that the economic and ontological Trinity are the same thing. Matthew Barrett discusses this point in Simply Trinity. Not to say that I concur, but most of these theologians/exegetes just insist on these ideas with little justification.
I wrote about the immanent (ontological) and economic Trinity here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/07/lacugna-and-immanenteconomic-trinity.html
Another gripe I have is when exegetes don't recognize that 1 John 4:8 is talking about the Father, not the Son or the holy spirit. They just need to read the context for verification of that statement.
Karl Rahner's axiom leaves one with 2 options (I have this in my God as love article), either emanationism (creation is necessary) or subordinationism (i.e. there is not ontological trinity).
I haven't read Barrett's work, but I hope to.
But I don't think the connection can be done exegetically, and I think most honest trinitarians would agree.
That's a great point about Rahner's axiom: I read your article but did not remember that specific part. But it makes sense.
I agree that the connection cannot be done exegetically and there are many statements that can be found where Trinitarians admit as much. However, too many of them think the Trinity is latent in the Bible and it's their job to show how clearly the Bible teaches the Trinity. R. Schackenburg sees the Trinity doctrine throughout the Gospel of John, and I'm convinced that he would say the Trinity is exegetically defensible and there are others like him.
I have no scientific way to demonstrate what I'm saying but it's just my impression from reading Trinitarian lit. And that includes Barrett and Millard Erickson.
Jonathon Swift famously said, "It's useless to try to reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into!"
Post a Comment